Member Info for howezap

Certainly think as part of the ongoing optimisation there is reasonable chance an infill drilling programme (at the very least) will happen at some point to convert much of the shallow underground mineralisation that didn’t previously make it into the JORC which it states could ‘significantly’ add to the resource.

This is a no brainier to add in ground value from what they know is already there in the resource model and be able to convert it to increase the JORC toward final evaluation.

They may want every bit of resource included in the JORC as possible from the companies ‘planned’ deep drilling strategy to count if they are going to maximise on the options to split operations between different contractors if they dont want to see these improved commercial options removed.

>The Board of Galileo is acutely aware that embarking on a particular development route would probably be exclusive to other routes thus removing the optionality of best value outcome for the Galileo shareholders. We remain open to the various options tabled......

Could come to nothing but needs studying

This latest optionality is a big plus for the project economics, it has been completely necessary to do so, as per their JV agreement. They simply have to and will continue to evaluate and optimise Project feasibility, which ultimately ‘maximises’ the value of Luansobe before it can then complete its final Project Feasibility Study.

The company have an obligation to shareholders to maximise value, therefore It can only be seen as positive news going forward.

To have the extent of diversification throughout the group of companies is incredibly important strategically. Jurisdictional, different mineral projects, small and large scale exploration, project development, production, projects that are at various stages of that evolution. All of which across the group are project managed individually. CB has the right people with the right skill sets in place across the group for day to day running.

They would certainly want to control and keep the reins on expenditure and without knowing where ‘all’ the drill collar locations are going be sited, they will not know where and what access improvements are needed to submit to contractors.

It may well be that multiple drill rigs will be used so it would benefit cost wise if contractually they were aligned. Remember it’s not just the drilling but assay labs too need booking and environmental management needs to be done after too. All needs to be budgeted for without taking unnecessary risks.

GLR entered into their JV for the Zambian licence (adj to XTR one) in sept ‘23 only a couple of weeks after XTR picked up the first 2 of their 5 in total.

GLR had to make the same access improvements that XTR are having to do.

From GLR commencement of drilling RNS July ‘24

-The decision to drill has been preceded by an extensive programme of reconnaissance and the reparation of roads and bridges to provide safe access for drilling equipment.

In fairness GLR had only the one area of focus whereas XTR have 2 main areas and covering overall a far larger area. The second of the two areas has the three additional licences in a block together with the other initial one. It’s naturally going to take longer to complete all recon and any repair work pushing back start of drilling with the addition of the further 3 licences that were only picked up in may.

All drill locations across the 5 licences have been selected and permitted since July, I doubt it will be too much longer now.

GLR commenced drilling almost a month ago on their Zambian license, XTR are fully funded and are prioritising their exploration efforts in Zambia.

Do folk believe that the access improvements will not be completed in time to get the rigs in there before the rainy season?

Why wouldn’t they commence at the earliest opportunity otherwise considering GLR have?

Curious as to what other reasons there are, that others may believe?

As long as the tumbleweed is tumbling along the road and over the new bridge, then it’s exciting not boring as it means drilling is imminent. 🤭

Lets hope ARCM/GLR etc have some some luck with their drilling.

I believe Xtr are in the mix there too.

Was originally stated early on that drilling was meant to commence in April gone. So think there has potentially been some sand bagging going on to coincide Zambia drilling with an upturn in the junior resource sector??? . Hasn’t happened quite yet but hols are nearly over and markets awake in September ‘usually’ where could see efforts to increase news flow to attract interest.

Plenty of potential good news to come on where and how wisely Manica disposal money is being spent.

Uuurgh how many times have I got to spell it out!…..

It’s not your it’s you’re 😉

Getting sucked into cost being the deciding factor, it’s far more complex than that,

So much work needs to be done first that Xtr would have had to contributed to had they not sold out. Before transitioning, there needs to be feasible mine plan. The problem is that underground mines are formed around their natural foundations. So the design will be dictated by natural characteristics. 


The crown pillars (rock left in situ for natural support) would ideally be located where there is rock with low economic worth or is barren as these areas are not mineable in the next phase. So obviously there is need for a lot of deeper drilling. This all needs to be determined before any UG mine design.

You can really begin to appreciate why the compamy needed to be part of this process. Ultimately the biggest risk was with no guarantees of the size of the transition zone and how any of it would react mettalurgically.

Not convinced? Imagine if a major problem occurred.

There was talk about it seeing a potential whole new sulphide plant being built to also process outsourced ores. So 🤷

Company would have required to raise market funds to even be part of the decision making process

The more I understand the more I believe the share price would not have appreciated over time if we had ‘not’ sold.

Whether that be through continuation of 23% share of pre tax profit which was never going to happen, or through the certain dilution to shareholders if they wanted to have a controlling interest in sulphide op. How would that have been possible to contribute to the upgrades, cover the increased company running costs, bring mining back to Silverking and fulfill its exploration commitments elsewhere ? Particularly so with this piddly market cap where access to capital has been made very difficult if not virtually un feasible in this economic climate. (For every junior)

With this deal there is now no dilution necessary, with exception only, to a serious growth opportunity from an existing asset or other elsewhere up until at least ‘27

The company can easily ride it out and be positioned to benefit later., strategically I think it’s been correct decision.

Cool bit of trivia thanks 😉

Time will tell if it was the right decision for shareholders.

Sharing my 30 mins worth of effortless research is for free. From asking myself a question and looking back through past RNS. It’s just my best shot at ‘guessing’ what’s happening with BR at present and not to imply that ‘is’ what is happening as could be wrong.

But, if drilling is necessary to improve on the economics, it has been stated in RNS more than once that a 3rd exploration phase has been in the planning stage since resource was upgraded.

They know the high grade trend extends NW through data correlation from holes 9 and 7. This high grade strike extension theory is backed up with geological data and will potentially add high grade tonnage to the open pit studies. It will not be blind drilling for the sake of it.

These grades will certainly be worth drilling for and will be within open pittable depths

21 Oct 2021 14:42

Drill hole BRDD-21-009 returned a very wide intersection of 448m @ 0.30% CuEq from a depth of 272m (see Table 1) including:

§ 155m at 0.44% CuEq from 343m

§ 35m at 0.61% CuEq from 363m

§ 28m at 0.54 % CuEq from 470m

 

· The results from drill hole BRDD-21-009 indicate that the mineralisation intersected in hole BRDD-21-007 (see RNS dated 7 October 2021) increases in width at depth, while the higher-grade intervals correlate extremely well from hole BRDD-21-007 to hole BRDD-21-009, indicating good continuity of the higher-grade copper zones.

 

· As with the results for BRDD-21-008 (see RNS dated 28 September 2021), a gold-rich zone was encountered at 630m depth which returned an overall interval of 8m at 0.85 g/t Au and best gold result of 2m at 1.92 g/t Au from 634m.

Still options available to increase NPV and value if desk studies don’t cut it.

little bit on the pre concentration study work.

first round has been successful in confirming br mineralisation amenability. but amenability to what?

going back to the mett test work done in ‘22 which planned work included comminution, flotation, projected flowsheet design and beneficiation analysis. with one of the main objectives to test whether the racecourse mineralisation is amenable to a simple flotation flowsheet.

skip forward to first round ore sorting/pre concentration done by tomra sorting solutions. where their test work was to also determine ore - waste separation characteristics from core samples that were already analysed.

the review by altrius recommended that further test work be carried out on pre-screening, gravity separation and co**** particle floatation with the cpf work is said to be progressing favourably.

would conclude then, that br mineralisation is amenable to flotation. we already know the lower grade ore is disseminated and not generally amenable to pre concentration such like tomra sorting, whereas cpf is not limited as such like most methods that require more distinct grade variability. cpf is also used as a scavenger tech in tailings to recover low grades.

if so then cpf is certainly looking likeliest to achieve the best overall results and most chance of going into the flowsheet design, 'if' the trade off against losses improves overall on the economics.

"to meet society's needs for critical mineral resources, the mining industry must develop projects that are socially accepted, environmentally sustainable, and economically profitable. one of the processes that have highest potential to overcome some of these challenges is co**** particle flotation"

hoping for positive enough results that firm decisions can be made going forward that maybe doesnt involve the need for more drilling

That would then be true on that basis for just about every company in the junior sector wouldnt it? The gulf and complete disconnect in the values of minerals and other assets against company market caps is all over and not just in the CB group.

Undoubtably there has been disappointment over timescales and resource size implied that have played a factor here in part. The Bushranger PR was extremely successful in raising the considerable exploration costs needed with minimal dilution to LTH’s but has since a long way back, been a thorn in CB’s side and is now well and truly biting us all in the @ss ‘adding’ to this pittiful share price.

Strange price action wed and thur, the owner of the two 500k buys today must have kicked themselves for missing sub 0.8p by maybe waiting overnight for another drop today. Have a blue weekend folks

Next phase is important, will take time they cannot move forward too progressively without clearer pathway from its ESG platform. Current data is still low level but will be used as the building blocks to further the permitting processes which is crucial for development and a legal requirement to meet environmental standards.

It’s a bore and can drag on but crucial for the development phase to meet compliances.

Yep maybe on the insider trading but there’s no real disputing the study results importance I’m sure lucky. 👍